Atlanta immigration detainee dies

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

49 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

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.  

 

When i arrive it will be the legal route and if declined I will not be sneaking across any borders. Anyone who does so is dishonest and deserves to be called an illegal, which already makes sense to me.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Mr&Mrs G.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

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.

 

 

 

the problem is the process of getting these folks before an immigration judge is so slow because we have underinvested in this area.  Judges, translators, defense attorney, court staff...all expensive but I cannot believe it as expensive as keeping folks under lock and key when they need to be returned home or set free. Because it is not a criminal court and these are not criminal charges the protection of a  speedy trial does not apply.  It really is a grey area of the law.

[IAMX 3,055]

13 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

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.

 

 

 

There's nothing incorrect about calling someone an illegal who's presence isn't legal. Note that yuna inserted the word "immigrant" in there to try and be clever, this is why I didn't bother doing the diligence of correcting them -- I don't respect the arguments of people who insert their own narrative. However, illegal is actually, in legal terms, called an "illegal alien", and there is absolutely no need for them to intend to immigrate to call them an illegal. Their presence alone in the United States on a removal order makes them this. So feel free. You're far from wrong.

Edited May 19, 2017 by IAMX

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

8 minutes ago, IAMX said:

There's nothing incorrect about calling someone an illegal who's presence isn't legal. Note that yuna inserted the word "immigrant" in there to try and be clever, this is why I didn't bother doing the diligence of correcting them -- I don't respect the arguments of people who insert their own narrative. However, illegal is actually, in legal terms, called an "illegal alien", and there is absolutely no need for them to intend to immigrate to call them an illegal. Their presence alone in the United States on a removal order makes them this. So feel free. You're far from wrong.

Thank you.

 

I left school at 14 to go to work full time so my educational skills are not the best, over 50 now but getting by. Sometimes the subject matter can just go over my head but I still try to get involved 

[yuna628 9,995]

20 minutes ago, IAMX said:

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.

 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

40 minutes ago, ccneat said:

the problem is the process of getting these folks before an immigration judge is so slow because we have underinvested in this area.  Judges, translators, defense attorney, court staff...all expensive but I cannot believe it as expensive as keeping folks under lock and key when they need to be returned home or set free. Because it is not a criminal court and these are not criminal charges the protection of a  speedy trial does not apply.  It really is a grey area of the law.

Darn that constitution 

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

Darn that constitution 

I'm still waiting for Queen Elizabeth to call a new US election. So fed up with Trump Putin upsetting me.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

5 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

Darn that constitution 

So if ya get rid of Trump and the constitution everyone will be happy 

[IAMX 3,055]

12 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

So if ya get rid of Trump and the constitution everyone will be happy 

The left are still trying to plotting out how (in futility) to remove the electoral college (whenever they take Congress+Presidency again) because its racist doesn't suit the Democrat agenda of only giving a ####### about the most populated urban areas. Even though they stand a snowballs chance in hell of removing it.

Edited May 19, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

The left are still trying to plotting out how (in futility) to remove the electoral college (whenever they take Congress+Presidency again) because its racist doesn't suit the Democrat agenda of only giving a ####### about the most populated urban areas. Even though they stand a snowballs chance in hell of removing it.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

6 minutes ago, IAMX said:

The left are still trying to plotting out how (in futility) to remove the electoral college (whenever they take Congress+Presidency again) because its racist doesn't suit the Democrat agenda of only giving a ####### about the most populated urban areas. 

If California secedes then you could do away with the electoral college that should even it out 

 

Just letting you know before the topic police come along, you're 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Mr&Mrs G.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, ccneat said:

He's right though. It is a disaster for a democracy. It's however a win/win for democratic elections in a constitutional republic.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

When i arrive it will be the legal route and if declined I will not be sneaking across any borders. Anyone who does so is dishonest and deserves to be called an illegal, which already makes sense to me.

 

You can call them whatever you want, and yet, it will not change the law, nor will it change your circumstances. 

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

4 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

You can call them whatever you want, and yet, it will not change the law, nor will it change your circumstances. 

I am not looking to change any laws. Nor planning to break any as I enter which is how it should be for all immigrants. 

[CaliCat 3,957]