Atlanta immigration detainee dies

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, Mr&Mrs G. said:

    Got my Washington newspapers mixed up  

I knew you would catch on!

[yuna628 9,528]

Washington Times calls him an illegal immigrant but gives no proof to back up that claim. If there's one thing that drives me absolutely bananas about the press is that they have no understanding of immigration any more than the average Joe does - leading to a good many more people being uneducated and misled.

 

The facts again seem to be he asked to enter and for whatever reason was denied entry - at best the vague ''not having necessary documents'' - this could range from he was an idiot that wasn't aware he needed a visa, to his visa had something wrong or missing, he thought his visa was valid when it wasn't, he forgot something, a mistake was made, or any whole host of a range of things from benign to nefarious (though no claim was made that he misrepresented himself or presented false documents). That still does not make him an illegal immigrant. And yes, he should have been removed immediately. But the question is really, why wasn't he? Calling him an illegal immigrant further compounds the problem of actual illegal immigration. If people want to solve the problem, they need to actually understand it first and find real solutions to fixing it.

Edited May 18, 2017 by yuna628

[CaliCat 3,957]

35 minutes ago, ccneat said:

really? Someone reads the Washington Times?

 

 

Some do, and unfortunately take it at face value. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

35 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

So he was from India and tried to use the backdoor to get in the USA.....Interesting...... Should have sent him back to India. 

 

Was he using the back door? Is that the name of the Atlanta Airport?

Edited May 18, 2017 by CaliCat

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

Was he using the back door? Is that the name of the Atlanta Airport?

The backdoor I referred to was Ecuador. But I can tell you have never actually been down by the border and seen the CBP signs written in Chinese, English, and Spanish. A fair number of people from outside of the Americas come to Mexico and try to sneak in. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

3 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

The backdoor I referred to was Ecuador. But I can tell you have never actually been down by the border and seen the CBP signs written in Chinese, English, and Spanish. A fair number of people from outside of the Americas come to Mexico and try to sneak in. 

 

Hardly. He arrived in the US at an international port of entry and was denied admittance. So, everyone who comes from Ecuador is entering through the backdoor? How's a flight into an airport the size of Atlanta considered a back door?

Edited May 18, 2017 by CaliCat

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

Hardly. He arrived in the US at an international port of entry and was denied admittance. So, everyone who comes from Ecuador is entering through the backdoor? 

Nice try arguing semantics, but it ain't going to work at all. The backdoor would be that he flew to Ecuador, and then tried to use his so called valid visa(That you say) and passport to enter the country in Atlanta. Sorry to bust your bubble but selling and buying fraudulent visas are a huge business in some parts of the world, and I think that's what happened here. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

4 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Nice try arguing semantics, but it ain't going to work at all. The backdoor would be that he flew to Ecuador, and then tried to use his so called valid visa(That you say) and passport to enter the country in Atlanta. Sorry to bust your bubble but selling and buying fraudulent visas are a huge business in some parts of the world, and I think that's what happened here. 

 

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing your misinformed statements, and baseless claims; and really they hardly warrant any argument, when they can't stand on their own even for a split second. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by CaliCat

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

24 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Calling him an illegal immigrant further compounds the problem of actual illegal immigration. If people want to solve the problem, they need to actually understand it first and find real solutions to fixing it.

Ìt starts at the top and works it's way down.

 

The word is used by members of both parties and by your explanation it would appear they are using it incorrectly. So it's no wonder it is used by less educated people and those of us of a foreign persuasion.  

[yuna628 9,528]

17 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Ìt starts at the top and works it's way down.

 

The word is used by members of both parties and by your explanation it would appear they are using it incorrectly. So it's no wonder it is used by less educated people and those of us of a foreign persuasion.  

It is up to those of us who have been through the system, with our foreign spouses to educate the public and fight to fix the system. If you are the immigrant and haven't arrived here to America yet, be prepared to be bombarded daily by stupid questions from people who always have an opinion about immigration on the one hand, and then on the other will be shocked with disbelief when you inform them how the legal immigration process actually is.

 

I'm also going to point out very carefully to those debating above, that ICE in their statement never called Patel an illegal immigrant either. No matter what documents he may or may not have had or assumptions being made as to what his intent was - he was still merely refused at the border. He definitely should have been removed promptly, but now he's dead.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

34 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Ìt starts at the top and works it's way down.

 

The word is used by members of both parties and by your explanation it would appear they are using it incorrectly. So it's no wonder it is used by less educated people and those of us of a foreign persuasion.  

I hope you are never denied access to US Soil...I would hate to label you an illegal

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

50 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Nice try arguing semantics, but it ain't going to work at all. The backdoor would be that he flew to Ecuador, and then tried to use his so called valid visa(That you say) and passport to enter the country in Atlanta. Sorry to bust your bubble but selling and buying fraudulent visas are a huge business in some parts of the world, and I think that's what happened here. 

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Ìt starts at the top and works it's way down.

 

The word is used by members of both parties and by your explanation it would appear they are using it incorrectly. So it's no wonder it is used by less educated people and those of us of a foreign persuasion.  

 

When it comes to immigration, the term 'illegal immigrant' is a misnomer, but one that fits a dishonest narrative embraced by some. You can join the group of ill-informed individuals and use it at will, or you can do some research into American immigration law, and use the correct words. One of these days you'll be landing here as an immigrant, and you'll find yourself on the the other side of the thick plexiglass on secondary inspection. It will probably make more sense then.  

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by CaliCat

[IAMX 3,055]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Washington Times calls him an illegal immigrant but gives no proof to back up that claim. If there's one thing that drives me absolutely bananas about the press is that they have no understanding of immigration any more than the average Joe does - leading to a good many more people being uneducated and misled.

 

The facts again seem to be he asked to enter and for whatever reason was denied entry - at best the vague ''not having necessary documents'' - this could range from he was an idiot that wasn't aware he needed a visa, to his visa had something wrong or missing, he thought his visa was valid when it wasn't, he forgot something, a mistake was made, or any whole host of a range of things from benign to nefarious (though no claim was made that he misrepresented himself or presented false documents). That still does not make him an illegal immigrant. And yes, he should have been removed immediately. But the question is really, why wasn't he? Calling him an illegal immigrant further compounds the problem of actual illegal immigration. If people want to solve the problem, they need to actually understand it first and find real solutions to fixing it.

What classifies this person as an illegal isn't their intent of migrating to the US. SCOTUS has affirmed this use. Their presence alone can make them an illegal. Sorry if you disagree but your opinion is rather irrelevant.

Edited May 18, 2017 by IAMX

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

I guess my reply didn't come across right.

 

Doing a little reading earlier I came across an article from Time magazine from 2012 and it named several prominent politicians and media people who were incorrectly using the word illegal to describe people. I can only remember three from the article, Bill O'Reilly, Mitt Romney and Chuck Shumer were each mentioned for using the word at the wrong time.

 

My response to yuna's reply was to acknowledge that she was correct. But we are influenced by what we see and hear on the tv and other media sources and that is a justification as to why the word gets used in the wrong instances.

 

This does not mean that I believe ice didn't anything wrong in either case mentioned earlier. The guy who travelled from India to the USA via Ecuador should have been stopped by one of the airlines before he boarded. The onus is on the airline to make sure we travel with the correct documentation or they pay the bill to return the passenger back where they came from. 

 

The guy who hung himself should have been brought to the airport the moment he was picked up by ice and put on a plane back to Panama. This guy would have been classed as an illegal after his next hearing.